You are here: / Cooperatives
, ,

CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the continuing wrong doctrine operated to toll the statute of limitations in this breach of contract/breach of warranty of habitability action involving damage to plaintiff’s cooperative apartment during a 2004 renovation. Plaintiff alleged the damage had never been repaired and brought his action in 2016. The Second Department held that the continuing wrong doctrine tolled the statute of limitations but damages were recoverable for only the six years preceding the commencement of the action:

The continuing wrong doctrine “is usually employed where there is a series of continuing wrongs and serves to toll the running of a period of limitations to the date of the commission of the last wrongful act” … . “In contract actions, the doctrine is applied to extend the statute of limitations when the contract imposes a continuing duty on the breaching party” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged that the damage to his unit persisted and had not been repaired, and that such breach constituted a continuing breach of the defendants’ contractual duty to keep the building in good repair and to provide habitable premises … . However, where, as here, the sole remedy sought for the alleged continuing contractual breaches is monetary damages, the plaintiff’s recovery must be limited to damages incurred within the six years prior to commencement of the action … . Garron v Bristol House, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04533, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CONTRACT LAW (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))/HABITABILITY, WARRANTY OF  (CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAIR DAMAGE TO A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT (SECOND DEPT))

WHOLLY ARBITRARY DECISION BY COOPERATIVE BOARD TO RESCIND PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE CONTRACT NOT SHIELDED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the cooperative board’s rescission of plaintiff’s purchase contract was wholly arbitrary and was not shielded by the business judgment rule:

​

Plaintiffs’ application to purchase a unit in defendants’ cooperative residential complex was approved by defendant Board of Directors, and then rescinded two weeks later, based upon a Board member’s erroneous report that plaintiff Richard Kallop told her he did not intend to reside in the complex, as required by the purchase contract. Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, to compel defendants to permit the sale to go forward. After defendants filed their answer, plaintiffs, by order to show cause, sought an order permitting the sale to close. An evidentiary hearing was held, at which the reporting Board member’s testimony revealed that Richard Kallop had not, as she claimed, informed her he intended to reside outside the cooperative complex. For his part, Richard testified that it had always been his plan to reside in the cooperative unit with his elderly mother, co-plaintiff Joan Kallop.

Under these facts, we conclude that defendants’ decision to rescind its approval of plaintiffs’ purchase application, being without any basis in reason and without regard to the facts, was wholly arbitrary, and thus not entitled to the protections generally provided to cooperative boards by the business judgment rule … . Kallop v Board of Directors for Edgewater Park Owners’ Coop. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08174, First Dept 11-21-17

 

COOPERATIVES (WHOLLY ARBITRARY DECISION BY COOPERATIVE BOARD TO RESCIND PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE CONTRACT NOT SHIELDED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (FIRST DEPT))/BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (COOPERATIVES, WHOLLY ARBITRARY DECISION BY COOPERATIVE BOARD TO RESCIND PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE CONTRACT NOT SHIELDED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (FIRST DEPT))

,

COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the cooperative board should not have given the owner of a second-floor cooperative apartment (Haffey) permission to construct a second floor terrace without the consent of the investor-owner of the first-floor cooperative apartment. The cooperative’s guidelines, which can be waived, required the first-floor owner’s consent to the construction of a second-floor terrace. The board’s decision singled out investor-owners for different treatment and cannot be justified under the business judgment rule. The court noted the board’s determination is properly the subject of an Article 78 proceeding:

​

… [In] “the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination so long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . “To trigger further judicial scrutiny, an aggrieved shareholder-tenant must make a showing that the board acted (1) outside the scope of its authority, (2) in a way that did not legitimately further the corporate purpose or (3) in bad faith”… . “[T]he broad powers of cooperative governance carry the potential for abuse when a board singles out a person for harmful treatment or engages in unlawful discrimination, vendetta, arbitrary decision making and favoritism” … .

… [T]he board’s determination to dispense with the consent requirement and allow Haffey to erect the subject terrace without the petitioner’s consent was not protected by the business judgment rule. By dispensing with the petitioner’s consent, and, more generally, the consent of first-floor shareholders-tenants who do not reside in the building, the board deliberately singled out the petitioner, as well as tenant-shareholders who do not reside on the premises, for harmful treatment and engaged in favoritism toward tenants-shareholders who resided on the premises. As such, the petitioner established that the board’s determination to dispense with his consent did not legitimately further the corporate purpose and was made in bad faith … . Matter of Dicker v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06645, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

COOPERATIVES (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S DETERMINATION TO WAIVE THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND-FLOOR TERRACE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE, THE BOARD’S RULING IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the declaratory judgment action which sought a determination of the ownership of a stock certificate representing shares in a cooperative apartment was governed by the three-year statute of limitation. The stock certificate was personal property, not real estate:

​

The defendants established that the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for recovery of a chattel (see CPLR 214[3]). “In order to determine the Statute of Limitations applicable to a particular declaratory judgment action, the court must examine the substance of that action to identify the relationship out of which the claim arises and the relief sought'”

… . “If the court determines that the underlying dispute can be or could have been resolved through a form of action or proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily provided, that limitation period governs the declaratory judgment action” … . Here, the plaintiff seeks to recover a stock certificate representing shares in a cooperative apartment corporation. An action to recover a stock certificate is governed by the three-year statute of limitations for recovery of a chattel … . “Shares of stock issued in connection with cooperative apartments are personal property, not real property” … . Loscalzo v 507-509 President St. Tenants Assn. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06070, Second Dept 8-9-17

​

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/SECURITIES (SHARES IN COOPERATIVE APARTMENT, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST HER AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Although the complainant, a shareholder in a cooperative, did not demonstrate she was discriminated against when the cooperative and the board (petitioners) refused to allow her to keep a dog in her apartment, the Second Department determined she did demonstrate petitioners retaliated against her for bringing her complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR). Complainant alleged she was disabled and the dog helped her cope with her disabilities:

To establish that a violation of the Human Rights Law occurred and that a reasonable accommodation should have been made, the complainant was required to demonstrate that she is disabled, that she is otherwise qualified for the tenancy, that because of her disability it is necessary for her to keep the dog in order for her to use and enjoy the apartment, and that reasonable accommodations could be made to allow her to keep the dog (see Executive Law § 296[2][a]…). …

… [T]he complainant failed to present medical or psychological evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the dog was actually necessary in order for her to enjoy the apartment. Notably, the complainant had resided in the apartment for more than 20 years without the dog. …

…[T]he complainant established that she participated in the protected activity of filing an SDHR discrimination complaint against the petitioners, the petitioners were aware of this action, and there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the petitioners’ retaliatory conduct, which included taking away the complainant’s designated parking space for a nine-day period, refusing to accept her maintenance checks, filing eviction proceedings against her, falsely informing her that the SDHR had ruled in the petitioners’ favor, and directing her to immediately remove her dog from her apartment … . Matter of Delkap Mgt., Inc. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2016 NY Slip Op 08073, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)/DISABILITIES (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)/DISCRIMINATION (ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)/RETALIATION (ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST COMPLAINANT AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION ACTION WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS)

,

COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.

The Second Department determined the cooperative board’s parking restriction was a proper exercise of the business judgment rule (and did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty):

“In the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination [s]o long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith'”… . “[D]ecision making tainted by discriminatory considerations is not protected by the business judgment rule'” … .

Here, the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by establishing that the decision to enforce parking rules and prohibit parking in the grass area behind one of the cooperative buildings was protected by the business judgment rule … . In particular, the defendants demonstrated that they were acting in the best interests of the cooperative after making a number of capital improvements that added to the aesthetics and value of the property. Beach Point Partners v Beachcomber, Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 07284, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

COOPERATIVES (COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE)/BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (COOPERATIVES, COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE)

, ,

LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN PUBLIC VESTIBULE OF THEIR BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landowner did not have a duty to provide minimal security precautions in the public vestibule of their building in this third party assault case, despite a history of shooting on the premises:

Defendant established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it owed no duty to protect plaintiff Charles Wong’s decedent, Malachi Wong, and his brother, plaintiff Timothy Wong, from the shootings that occurred in the public vestibule of their building. A landowner’s duty to take minimal security precautions does not extend to exterior public areas, including walkways and vestibules … . Contrary to the motion court’s finding, plaintiffs’ evidence failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the shootings were foreseeable. The article in the Co-op City Times, expressing the need for a greater police presence in Co-op City, and defendant’s public safety records, indicating 24 reports of gunshots fired on the premises, were insufficient, since they did not indicate that any of the reported shootings occurred in the vicinity of plaintiffs’ building … . The location of where the shots were fired is relevant, in light of the fact that Co-op City spans two-square miles and is comprised of approximately 200 residential buildings … .

The affidavit of plaintiffs’ security expert in which he states that defendant’s reduction of its security officers at midnight proximately caused decedent’s and Timothy Wong’s injuries is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant breached its duty to provide minimal precautions against the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties … . Furthermore, defendant did not proximately cause the injuries, since the record shows that the assailant specifically targeted Malachi and Timothy … . Wong v Riverbay Corp. 2016 NY Slip Op 03585 [139 AD3d 440], First Dept 5-5-16

 

, , ,

BOARD OF RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE CORPORATION UNREASONABLY WITHHELD CONSENT TO TRANSFER SHARES AND PROPRIETARY LEASE TO TWO SONS OF THE DECEASED APARTMENT RESIDENTS.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the board of defendant residential cooperative corporation unreasonably withheld consent for the shares and proprietary lease to be transferred to the two sons of the deceased holders of the shares and proprietary lease. The case turned on the language of the proprietary lease. The application was made by the two sons, only one of whom was to live in the apartment. The dissent emphasized the term “a family member,” arguing the proprietary lease did not allow a transfer to more than one family member. Estate of Del Terzo v 33 Fifth Ave. Owners Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01039. 1st Dept 2-11-16

CORPORATION LAW (RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, BOARD UNREASONABLY WITHHELD CONSENT TO TRANSFER OF SHARES AND PROPRIETARY LEASE)/RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE (BOARD UNREASONABLY WITHHELD CONSENT TO TRANSFER OF SHARES AND PROPRIETARY LEASE)/PROPRIETARY LEASE (RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, BOARD UNREASONABLY WITHHELD CONSENT TO TRANSFER OF SHARES AND PROPRIETARY LEASE)

Cooperative Board’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Sell His Shares in the Cooperative Was Not Tainted by Discriminatory Considerations—Denial Protected by the Business Judgment Rule

The Second Department determined the board of a cooperative dwelling acted within the scope of its authority (pursuant to the business judgment rule) when it denied plaintiff’s application to sell his shares in the cooperative to a specific buyer.  Although the board’s action would not be protected by the business judgment rule if it were tainted by discriminatory considerations, the court concluded there was no evidence discriminatory considerations played a role in the denial:

“In the context of cooperative dwellings, the business judgment rule provides that a court should defer to a cooperative board’s determination [s]o long as the board acts for the purposes of the cooperative, within the scope of its authority and in good faith'” … . ” [D]ecision making tainted by discriminatory considerations is not protected by the business judgment rule'” … .

Here, the cooperative demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by establishing that its denial of the resale application was protected by the business judgment rule … . In particular, the cooperative demonstrated that its denial of the resale application was authorized, and done in good faith and in furtherance of the legitimate interests of the cooperative, in light of significant debt the prospective buyer held relating to a separate property. The evidence the plaintiff submitted in opposition to this showing was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the resale application was actually denied for a discriminatory reason, or any other reason not protected by the business judgment rule. Griffin v Sherwood Vil., Co-op “C”, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06112, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

, , , , ,

Privatization of a Mitchell-Lama Cooperative Housing Corporation Is Not a Taxable Conveyance Subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the reconstitution of a cooperative housing corporation [Trump Village], changing from a Mitchell-Lama corporation pursuant to the Private Housing Finance Law [PHFL] to a corporation pursuant to the Business Corporation Law, was not a conveyance of real property subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax [RPTT]. The NYC Department of Finance characterized the change as a taxable conveyance and was seeking over $21,000,000 in tax and penalties.  The Court of Appeals held that the amendment to the certificate of incorporation did not create a new corporation and that the amended certificate did not constitute a deed:

In support of their position that the privatization of Trump Village is a taxable event, defendants argue that an amendment to a certificate of incorporation is a “deed.” Defendants also assert that Trump Village is a new corporation and that there was actually a conveyance of real property to a different corporation, with Trump Village being both the grantor and grantee. However, defendants’ construction of the RPTT cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, even if there were any ambiguities regarding the application of the RPTT to this situation, “doubts concerning [a taxing statute’s] scope and application are to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer”… . Thus, we reject defendants’ strained interpretation of section 11-2102(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. …

Trump Village …, is the same corporation that was named in the original certificate of incorporation. The Business Corporation Law distinguishes between amending a certificate of incorporation (§ 801 et seq.) and formation of a corporation (§ 401 et seq.). Section 801 (14) provides that a certificate of incorporation may be amended “to strike out, change or add any provision . . . relating to the business of the corporation, its affairs, its right or powers . . . .”…

The PHFL provides that a Mitchell-Lama corporation “may be voluntarily dissolved” and “[t]hat upon dissolution, title to the project may be conveyed in fee to the owner or owners of its capital stock or to any corporation designated by it or them for that purpose, or the company may be reconstituted pursuant to appropriate laws relating to the formation and conduct of corporations”(PHFL § 35 [3][emphasis added]). Accordingly, there are two options for the process of privatization, and plaintiff chose the second option – – reconstitution through amendment of its certificate of incorporation [FN1]. Defendants posit that the legislature intended the word “reconstitute” to mean the same thing as “reincorporate.” However, as long ago as 1857, it was recognized that reincorporation “cannot be deemed the formation of a new corporation, but should be regarded as the continuation of the existing one”… . Trump Vil Section 3 v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08788, CtApp 12-17-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy